Appeal No. 2004-0645
Application 09/194,968
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Courtaulds does
not anticipate the subject matter of appellants’ independent
claim 1 on appeal, or that of claims 2, 3, 5 and 8 through 10
which depend therefrom. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 3, 5 and 8 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based on Courtaulds will not be sustained.
We next look to the examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Courtaulds in view
of Wilson, and that of claims 6 and 7 as being unpatentable over
Courtaulds in view of Buell ‘003 and Suprise. Like appellants
(brief, pages 29-31), even assuming the above-noted prior art
references can be combined in the manner urged by the examiner,
we find that the secondary references to Buell ’003 and Suprise,
considered alone or in combination with each other and
Courtaulds, do not overcome the deficiencies of Courtaulds
expressly discussed above with regard to claim 1 on appeal.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as set forth in our initial
discussions of Courtaulds, the examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and of dependent claims 6 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007